Dear Atheists,

To claim that God is human-made, is a contradiction: suppose man created God, then man could also remove him - such a removable can only be an idol, not God!

Man keep attributing God with all sorts of things: Father, Creator, Deity, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, or even Existing and on the other hand "human-made" or "imaginary companion". These are obviously all figments of human mind and fail the test of reality and logic.

However, the world would be very boring if all we talked about was science. Have you never called your sweetheart something like "princess", "shining-knight", "honey-bunny", "bumble-bee", "turtle-dove", "beetle", etc. or in contrast "bitch", "witch", or "gestapo"?

One must consider the context. Calling one's beloved "turtle-dove" does not express an expectation of them flying. How would you feel if mocked "hehe, lets see her flying and bringing you an olive-leaf from the supermarket"?

As it is so difficult to grasp God, we tend to use intermediate nick-names. All that matters is not whether the names we call God are scientifically-correct (obviously not!), but whether they are generated out of love and devotion, or out of fear and hate.

For [non-abused] children, to call someone "Father", is an expression of trust (or they could use "Mother" just the same).

To call someone "Creator" is to express our gratitude and feeling of indebtedness.

To consider that a physical description, is shallow and ignorant: both for the worshiper and for the antagonist.

Believing things about God is often a religious technique (though not the ultimate) and can be very effective for some people. For example, believing that God created the world 5772 years ago, is a test of faith and one's ability to suspend one's dependency on the evidence of the senses, thus procuring a detachment from the world and thereby closeness to God: If personally that belief doesn't bring you any closer to God, then ignore and don't believe it. For you, looking at the night sky and sensing your body's insignificance may prove a better religious technique.

Pity some religious-leaders blur the difference between religious-techniques and science.

It does appear that I have stepped on George's ant hill, which is a little strange that most of the recent posts are not wildly divergent.
Davidf, I completely agree with you, as well as Einstein. I don't regard his views on religion as being any more valid than anyone else's; merely the most in step with my own views. Rusty puts it quite well:
“... from the point of view of the church, anybody modelling their spirituality on the remote deity envisaged by Einstein would be indistinguishable from an atheist.”
Except that I don't think Einstein actually envisaged a 'remote deity', but I accept the sentiment.
This is precisely why I describe myself as a de facto Atheist; as I see it, the existence or non existence of a God or Gods is (at least at our current stage of evolution) unknowable, so why get our nickers in a twist?
I also particularly admired Einstein's views on war. In WW2, my father joined a brigade which drove in convoy up to Cape York, and stayed there for the duration, waiting for the Japanese to invade. As a child, I must admit I was a little disappointed that Dad wasn't a war hero, or marched on ANZAC day. As an adult I became quite proud that my father was prepared defend his country, but not prepared to invade anyone else's.
But I probably admire Einstein's humility most. I think (at the risk of putting my words into his mouth) he would have been the last to suggest his views on religion were more valid than anyone else's.

Too right hasBeen plaster in the navels. I cant believe all these people wanting to intrude on an otherwise joyous life by obligating oneself to some kind of grand purpose.

Maybe they aren't joyous like me.

Maybe it's some kind of strong inner-parent problem people have developed.

Does it ever occur to you lot you cant see the wood for the trees?

Speaking of trees, does it help if you considered both Adam and Eve were monkeys? I always thought that would help but religious people give me funny looks when I suggest it.

I think really you people should look to children if you're interested in some kind of answers. Not because they came from any kind of define intervention or spiritual place or anything like that, just that they haven't been swayed by any kind of ideology or had any conditioning, or been knocked around much at all, so they can truly see.

They generally don't have any kind of ulterior agenda. Nice people they are. Sometimes it's a bit hard to think at their level, but we should aspire to reach those heights.

I reckon I'm balanced as I both believe and not believe in Jesus. I believe he existed, but I don't think he's in a position to do too much for me now. I cant for the life of me see how he could possibly 'die for my sins', seeing as though my sins happened way way after he died, and isn't that a bit of a imposition for one person to have to be a scapegoat for eternity?

If Christians were really Christian-like they should let him off the hook. 'OK Jesus, we can stand on our own two feet now, and take some responsibility for our actions'. It's the least they could do after so many years.

Maybe Jesus isn't really a big martyr control freak and it's all a big misunderstanding. Wouldn't that be funny.

I was thinking of you lot the other day and I came up with conclusive proof about this god idea, but I've forgotten what I decided now.

Grim,

I agree that Einstein's humility shines through. To me, it is probably the greatest virtue, especially when demonstrated by one as celebrated as Einstein.

Yuyutsu,
You've gotten yourself into a knot and effectively diffuse god into nothing.

Man has created your god (the idea) and is removing him. Atheists, agnostics and every other religious believer is the evidence of that. So if god can be removed, then god is an idol.
If god is not to be an idol, you have to demonstrate why it cannot be removed.

If I understand correctly, the next couple of paragraphs are trying to express an inability of man to accurately describe god, but as long as the inaccurate descriptions with inaccurate attributes are for the right reasons, its ok.
So we get to a point where god is non-describable and non-quantifiable. Thus god is completely indistinguishable.

What I can read into the paragraph of religious technique, if I may paraphrase, believe the impossible as it brings you closer to god. Or not, as that also brings you closer to god.

So all up, god is real otherwise its an idol because idols are gods that aren't real. To feel closer to god follow religious thinking, or not. Since god is indistinguishable from anything else, it doesn't matter what attributes or words are used to describe god, or not.

I'm not real sure i'm convinced.

Grim,
>>Einstein's humility shines through. I think (at the risk of putting my words into his mouth) he would have been the last to suggest his views on religion were more valid than anyone else’s.<<
Exactly. Could you say the same about Dawkins? If not, this is the difference between the two I have been referring to in my post above. Perhaps it is also related to the fact that Einstein’s views on religion are respected (and quoted) by many contemporary atheists AS WELL AS many (religious) Jews and Christians.